A preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis of hepatitis E vaccination among pregnant women in epidemic regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To estimate the cost-effectiveness of hepatitis E vaccination among pregnant women in epidemic regions. Methods A decision tree model was constructed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 3 hepatitis E virus vaccination strategies from societal perspectives. The model parameters were estimated on the basis of published studies and experts' experience. Sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate the uncertainties of the model. Results Vaccination was more economically effective on the basis of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER< 3 times China's per capital gross domestic product/quality-adjusted life years); moreover, screening and vaccination had higher QALYs and lower costs compared with universal vaccination. No parameters significantly impacted ICER in one-way sensitivity analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis also showed screening and vaccination to be the dominant strategy. Conclusion Screening and vaccination is the most economical strategy for pregnant women in epidemic regions; however, further studies are necessary to confirm the efficacy and safety of the hepatitis E vaccines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".